Joint W3C IG WoT/Thing-to-Thing PRG Minutes — Summary

More detailed minutes are at: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/blob/master/minutes.md (thanks to all the notetakers!)

Slides are at: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/tree/master/slides

SATURDAY, October 31, 2015

0914-0943 10 Welcome (Carsten)

Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/00-t2trg-94-welcome.pdf

Discussion:

0943-1007 Report from W3C IG WoT meeting (Joerg)

Slides: [TBD]

1007-1026 WoT Thing Description (TD) (Sebastian Käbisch)

Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/10b-w3c_td_overview.pdf

1026-1030 Report from W3C IG WoT meeting (Joerg, continued)

1032-1102 Federated Multi-Tenant Service Arch for the IoT (Herb Wildfeuer)

Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-burgess-promise-iot-arch-00.txt
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/11-prez14.pdf

Discussion:

1120-1230 12 Ari Keränen: REST for IoT

Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keranen-t2trg-rest-iot-00
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/12-ietf94_t2trg-rest-iot-00.pdf

Discussion:

1230-1314 13 John Mattsson: Actuator Security

Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-core-coap-actuators-00.txt
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/13-IETF-94-T2TPRG-Controlling-Actuators-and-Cyberphysical-Systems.pdf

1430-1449 14 Jayaraghavendran K

Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vasu-core-ace-service-provisioning
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/14-Service-Provisioning-for-Constrained-Devices.pdf

Discussion:

1449-1502 Security Considerations for the IoT – something T2TRG wants to pick up? (Carsten)

Drafts:

Discussion:

1502-1516 Problems in and among industries for the prompt realization of IoT (Yoshiki Ishida)

Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baba-iot-problems
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/15-Challenges-in-and-among-industries-for-the-prompt-IoT.pdf

Discussion:

1516-1520 … splitting into breakouts

1520-1830 Breakouts (rooms 304 and 513)

SUNDAY, November 1, 2015

0900-0930 Reports from breakouts

Summaries were given from REST and Security breakouts.

Discussion:

1000-1026 Alexander Pelov: COOL update

Draft out now: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-veillette-core-cool-00
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/16-ietf94-cool-presentation-short.pdf

Discussion centered around the various IETF approaches to management (SNMP, NETCONF, YANG, …).

1026-1045 Carsten Bormann: FETCH draft

Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-core-coap-fetch-00
Slides: https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/raw/master/slides/17-fetch.pdf

Discussion:

1100-1200 RG next steps (all)

1300-1500 (breakout discussions, continued)

WEDNESDAY, November 4, 2015

1030-1130 Report to the IETF

1030 Welcome (Carsten); Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-t2trg-0.pdf

Discussion

Kevin Fall: on one of your first slide (constrained nodes, devices), maybe the ship has sailed there. However there are many other devices, such as Industrial Internet, which may not be that constrained, but that have some special requirements (real-time comms). Would this be of interest for the charter?

Cabo: It is possible. We don’t want to do another Car-to-car comm. The “Thing” is the important part here

Kevin: What is the “thingness” here? Is the constrained-ness a significant part?

Cabo: That’s a good point.

Andrew: Now I’m confused. What Kevin was asking - you have this definition constrained-*. Now we say - ok, it’s true that some of the things are not constrained… So now we ask - then this is networking?

Kevin: Not that I try to advice you. In 2000 we had sensor networks. And as one years go to the next, devices become less and less constrained. It should be clear that if the choice is to say “constrainedness” is the essence of “Thing”, this will lead to a given path, as opposed to real-time

Cabo: The number of transistors is not the only thing. The reachability (always on) and some other

Andrew: It seems that the risk here is to lose focus. The value to say - you’ve got these things and limit to them.. (?). …

Cullen: Security provisioning, bootstrapping, etc. is a very specific problem, e.g. Smart Meters have the same problems (and are not constrained). It is a very broad issue covering everything that we’ve seen until now. I’d see something specific in the charter - this specific problem to solve.

Lars: The charters of IRTF are more different than IETF. IRTF is like an advertisement to research community. I wouldn’t like to see something that is tightly constrained. I’d like to see something that is more open, and the IRTF gives the chair the choice to restrict the discussins, but the goal is not to recharter after this.

Andrew: I agree. We’ve seen RG that have a too-broad scope for people to focus. People spend too much time arguing what is the problem.

Lars: In the IETF the chairs use the charter to eliminate arguments which are off-scope. In IRTF, we rely on chairs to say - at this point, the group is more focused on this item.

Andrew: again, I agree. The thing is, if anyone can say ‘oh yes, that’s a problem too’. So we must agree on which are the interesting problems

Lars: correct

Kevin Fall: The idea that this is an advertisment is on the point. If I have a researcher doing real-time controller/automation, can I advertise to him/her? Here we see “constrained” on the first line. I’d like to see “things that interact with the real-world (real-time?), and may be constrained”. This way we don’t redo 15 years of work.

Cabo: …

Cabo: Any other ideas

(?): Are there any concrete plans to .. something with ICN. There are some specific problems with naming

Cabo: Yes, there are some common things

Jorg Ott: I agree with Lars' suggestion. The RG should be contribution-driven. If we have some controller devices that move some monster things, then OK. It should be inclusive rather than exclusive

Ari: I think that we have the opened scope to begin with. So far everything has worked great, and I like this approcah.

Cabo: I agree that probably we may make the reference to “physical systems” more visible

Mathias: To give input from someone that has been active. For me it was quite clear the goal of this RG. As someone from IoT, moving to Cyberphycial systems, etc. for me it was quite clear. It is something connected to a “thing”, which is constrained. Usually we look at architectures. We don’t want to work on specific applications, but on architectures.

Lars: The group is very active, let me know when you have text. I expect it to be chartered soon.